A former Apple intern has been blamed for a leak of iOS source code. The intern reportedly distributed it to five friends in the iOS jailbreaking community, and the code eventually spread out of this group:

According to Motherboard, the intern who stole the code took it and distributed it to a small group of five friends in the iOS jailbreaking community in order to help them with their ongoing efforts to circumvent Apple's locked down mobile operating system. The former employee apparently took "all sorts of Apple internal tools and whatnot," according to one of the individuals who had originally received the code, including additional source code that was apparently not included in the initial leak.

On the evening of February 7, Motherboard's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai reported that code from the secure boot-up portion of Apple's iOS mobile operating system—referred to as iBoot—had been posted to GitHub in what iOS internals expert Jonathan Levin described to the website as "the biggest leak in history." That may be hyperbole, and the leaked code has since been removed by GitHub after Apple sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown request. But the situation may still have implications for Apple mobile device security as it could potentially assist those trying to create exploit software to "jailbreak" or otherwise bypass Apple's security hardening of iPhone and iPad devices.

The DMCA notice required Apple to verify that the code was their property—consequently confirming that the code was genuine. While GitHub removed the code, it was up for several hours and is now circulating elsewhere on the Internet.

The iBoot code is the secure boot firmware for iOS. After the device is powered on and a low-level boot system is started from the phone's read-only memory (and checks the integrity of the iBoot code itself), iBoot performs checks to verify the integrity of iOS before launching the full operating system. It also checks for boot-level malware that may have been injected into the iOS startup configuration. This code is a particularly attractive target for would-be iOS hackers because—unlike the boot ROM and low-level boot loader—it has provisions for interaction over the phone's tethering cable.

No, you should look it up again. And, this time, avoid using some corporate approved alternative dictionary. If something is stolen from you, then you no longer have it, and you cannot make use of it. Apple still has the code which was copied and redistributed. We are talking about a COPYRIGHT violation, not a theft. Try to keep up with the conversation.

AC above humorously pointed out a better way to look at it. The dev didn't steal the code. They stole Apple's ability to "secure" it's phones. My guess is this isn't permanent. In a week or so we'll see an iOS update that plugs the holes and status quo is restored.

I disagree that this is about Copyright, which typically is about control of something that is made available to the public (a work of art or play). Apple never intended for its source code to be made public, so in effect they have lost something here - the secrecy of the code.

Now, we may disagree on whether the code should ever be secret in the first place, but the fact is that this secrecy is something that they used to have but no longer do. They have lost something as a result of this action.

I happen to agree that "steal" is the wrong word, but I think copyright infringement is the wrong word too. Not sure what the right word for this is.

Copyright is applied automatically to effectively all items that are written down or recorded in any way, even unpublished items [archivists.org]. Copyright law does apply.

At the end of the day though, this is about sharing trade secrets, which is covered by trade [wikipedia.org] secret [wikipedia.org] laws [wikipedia.org] and whatever non-disclosure contract Apple had with the intern.

Here's another example why from a common language perspective 'steal' seems fine (not suggesting legal). Going way back to Shakespare is the idea of stealing someone's thoughts. The thoughts still belong to the person, but they're now possessed by another.

The best-regarded virgins of our clime
Have loved it too: I would not change this hue,
Except to steal your thoughts, my gentle queen.

Not quite. There is no physical evidence, is there? You can't steal an IP, or imaginary property. Please stop trying to conflate theft with what is happening out here in the real world. Theft involves some kind of physical asset. If I steal your lunch, you can't eat it. If I steal your car, you can't drive it. You've been deprived of some real asset, and you're unable to make use of it. If I copy your playlist from your MP3 player, you can still listen to your music. If I copy your installation of $OS into a virtual machine, you can still operate your computer, because your OS remains intact. I MIGHT use the copy of your OS to learn your login credentials for email, banking, stock trades, etc, so that I can steal your money. (That is the goal of most phishing and other scams, of course.) But, unless and until I actually steal some of your money, there hasn't been a theft - I've only copied something of yours.

There is a reason we have words like "copyright infringement" and other abstract things, like plagiarism. These things are similar to theft, in that I benefit from them in an illegal, immoral, or unethical fashion. But, unlike theft, you are not deprived of anything. It's all imaginary property.

If the code had been stolen, Apple would be no longer able to sell iphones that boot and work.

Poor, deprived Apple, whatever will they do.

No.

The code was almost certainly copied in violation of the law, if the account here is correct, but the law violated would not have been larceny or other "stealing something" related law--it would have been a violation of laws involving copyright, trade secret revelation, etc.

We do not change the quoted part of TFS without making it abundantly clear that we have done so. If we did, we would be guilty of putting words into someone else's mouth. They didn't say 'copied', they said 'stole'. So that is what we have to report. By all means have your rage but, as I don't suppose Motherboard read this site, I fear that you are simply wasting your time.

Yeah, I don't agree with the editors' postings, either. The Hillary Clinton Campaign posted their own submission, [soylentnews.org] and it was rejected. Which goes to show that the editors care not for the real truth, but only bullshit. They are politically-motivated. They will bury the outright truth, but you called them out on it. Keep up the good work.

No he made a new copy thus the copy was his. If you make an imprint of a key and make a new key from that imprint, you didn't steal the key nor did you steal a copy of the key. You made a new one. He made a new set of data which wouldn't have existed otherwise, so Apple never had anything taken from it. Thus the code wasn't stolen from Apple.

This is wrong. There is no way around it. Do not want to call stolen? No problem, maybe you are fine that I use your car without your authorization, I promise you I will return it.Your house? Also, I will use it, but not steal it, you get to keep it. For a site with nerds, the logic jumps that people make to excuse or diminish what is obviously wrongdoing is amazing.

Another problem is that this single intern probably made the live much harder for other employees and even interns, who will now have suspicion and audits on their heads. I would not mind a 6 month effective prison sentence or a mandatory 1 year community work.

I'm not fine with that. And there are laws against it. [malawforum.com] But the laws do not refer to "stealing" the car because that is not what happened.

What you did is wrong, and there is a law against. The law is not against "stealing" (you didn't) nor against "being a jerk" (debatable), it's against your use of my car without permission. It is a law thing, not a "nerd" thing.

Your house? Also, I will use it, but not steal it, you get to keep it.

Yeah, no, you don't have permission, so what you did was wrong. Believe it or not, though--it's not legally (nor in any other manner) called "stealing the house." It's called tresspassing [thefreedictionary.com]. This is because even though you tresspassed, you did not put the house in your pocket and leave with it. This would be difficult, because the house is large and your pocket is small.

What you did is wrong, and there is a law against. The law is not against "stealing" (you didn't) nor against "being a jerk" (debatable), it's against your use of my house without permission. It is a law thing, not a "nerd" thing.

For a site with nerds, the logic jumps that people make to excuse or diminish what is obviously wrongdoing is amazing.

Please reflect on what you are saying. Honestly, if you are trying to help, the foregoing should have been enough; if you are not trying to help, then you are succeeding.

maybe you are fine that I use your car without your authorization, I promise you I will return it.

During the time that you use the car, I do not have access to it, so it still falls under the same definition of "stealing" that copyright violation does not: by taking the item, you deprive me of having it. The act of returning it later does not magically make the item available during the time it was stolen. Did the intern delete Apple's copies after distributing it to others? If not, it's not theft.

Your house? Also, I will use it, but not steal it, you get to keep it.

Unless you physically take the house away from its current location, then no, it's not stealing. Trespassing, maybe breaking and entering, but not stealing. There are already other laws that cover this, so why should we start trying to claim it's theft when it's not? Likewise for copyright violation: it's not theft, so quit diluting the term to include things that don't apply.

For a site with nerds, the logic jumps that people make to excuse or diminish what is obviously wrongdoing is amazing.

What amazes me is the logic jumps people make to conflate an illegal activity with another activity in a lame attempt to make it sound worse than it is. "Theft" has an immediate negative connotation that's easier to sensationalise, whereas "copyright violation" sounds mundane and lacks the emotion and romanticism. Robin Hood stories wouldn't be nearly as interesting if he only copied from the rich and gave to the poor.

It's also an attempt to conflate a civil issue (copyright violation) with outright illegal activity (theft). I'll agree that taking someone's code and distributing it without permission is wrong, a violation of copyright, and most likely (but not necessarily) unethical, but I will not agree that it's theft. Diluting existing terms to make something else sound more severe than it is that way is how we ended up with the current batshit insane situation of "nazi", "racist", and "misogynist" basically meaning "somebody said a thing I disagree with" to many people. We all need to stop this shit, use the correct terms, and quit trying to sensationalise everything, because all it's doing is trivialising serious things until the words to describe them are effectively meaningless.

I'll agree that taking someone's code and distributing it without permission is wrong, a violation of copyright, and most likely (but not necessarily) unethical

Why would you agree with such a thing? Proprietary software is unethical since it doesn't respect users' freedoms. If someone copies code and distributes it, and that weakens the proprietary software company's position or control in some way, then I consider that a good thing. The real problem is not that code was copied and distributed without permission, but that people shouldn't be buying devices which don't respect their freedoms to begin with.

Because the alternative is effectively taking a stance of "I think your position is wrong, therefor I will disregard your rights and opinions". If someone wants to release proprietary software, that's their choice to make, and I have no right to ignore that and release the code against their will. If you think it's valid to ignore someone else's rights and wishes for their own creations, then you're also effectively condoning that behaviour from others, which means it would be equally fair for someone that disagrees with free software to take GPL code and put it in proprietary products without releasing the source.

It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that doing bad things for good reasons is always justified because it's for some "greater good", but it's not always true. That sort of "the end always justifies the means" thinking is dangerous.

You don't have a right to supervise what I do with my equipment, nor to allow or disallow me from using it as a I feel fit.

If I bought it from you, you should have taken that into account before selling it.

There is no right to retain ownership in things after you sold them - quite the opposite!

While I agree with you on this, it's entirely off-topic. This is a discussion about copyright violation and you're shoehorning in a rant about product ownership and what rights (if any) the seller has after the product is sold.

This is about the property rights of the iphone owner versus the copyright privileges of the seller. Rights trump privileges.

No, that's just more "ends justify the means" bullshit. There's no requirement to violate Apple's copyright to maintain your property rights as buyer, as evidenced by every other jailbreak that's been done without someone handing over the source. You don't have to, and shouldn't, disregard someone else's legal rights (whatever you may think of copyright, it's still legally recognised*) just because you don't like what they create with them. If you care about the right to do what you wish with what you purchase, this is the wrong way to go about doing it. (Of course, if you actually care about property rights you probably shouldn't be buying Apple products in the first place...)

It's also still off topic to this comment thread, which was about whether copyright violation is theft or not. You can keep modding me troll for saying it, but it won't make your comments be on-topic. This entire tangent belongs in a different comment chain, not tacked onto this one to address your pet peeve. What you did is basically the same as whenever someone interjects "ahem, it's really GNU/Linux" into random Linux discussions: even if people agree, it's not the topic at hand and doesn't belong.

* Of course, copyright durations are completely out of whack and the laws need changing to reduce copyright length and take back the public domain, but that's a different argument and a different fight that isn't applicable here.

Because the alternative is effectively taking a stance of "I think your position is wrong, therefor I will disregard your rights and opinions".

Rights? This isn't as if someone's right to life or physical property is at stake here. A copy of data was made and distributed, and the data wasn't even personally identifying information. Rather than chastising people who fight against proprietary software companies, you should chastise the proprietary software companies for abusing users.

If someone wants to release proprietary software, that's their choice to make, and I have no right to ignore that and release the code against their will.

Proprietary software is a moral abomination and I feel that weakening a proprietary software developer's hold on their users even slightly is good. Once again, the only issue here is that people shouldn't be buying from Apple to begin with.

then you're also effectively condoning that behaviour from others, which means it would be equally fair for someone that disagrees with free software to take GPL code and put it in proprietary products without releasing the source.

Not really. For a Free Software activist, those are two different things with different implications. One weakens proprietary software and the other doesn't. Proprietary software should not exist, period.

It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that doing bad things

I don't think it's a bad thing to begin with, so you fail already. The ends can indeed justify the means, especially when the means aren't even bad, like here.

That sort of "the end always justifies the means" thinking is dangerous.

Stop trying to paint this with some broad dystopian brush and consider what's actually at stake here: Apple's ability to abuse and control their users. If they lost some of that power, it would be a good thing. Once again, treating this as if someone's right to life or property is being violated is absolutely asinine and disingenuous. That's copyright thug propaganda right there.

Rather than chastising people who fight against proprietary software companies, you should chastise the proprietary software companies for abusing users.

False dichotomy; I can chastise both for different reasons. The world is not black-and-white, and it's possible to disagree with someone's actions despite said actions being taken against someone I dislike, even when the action is beneficial to a cause I agree with.

Not really. For a Free Software activist, those are two different things with different implications. One weakens proprietary software and the other doesn't. Proprietary software should not exist, period.

My point was that, once you completely disregard someone else's rights, there's no reason to expect anyone else to have any regard for yours. If you feel you can do whatever you like because the end goal of harming proprietary software justifies it, then you're also implicitly condoning bad behaviour from the "other side" as well, because once you stop respecting someone else's rights, they have no reason to respect yours.

I don't think it's a bad thing to begin with, so you fail already. The ends can indeed justify the means, especially when the means aren't even bad, like here.

So you have a "no bad tactics, only bad targets" mindset. That's the mantra of a zealot, and something we will not agree on.

What *is* it with you people that every wrong or harmful thing, whether or not it involves a theft, has to be called "stealing?"

He manufactured the copy. It belonged and indeed still belongs to him. He just didn't have permission to make it.

There are three entire fields of law dedicated to this, copyright law, trademark law, and patent law. They do not overlap with the parts of criminal law that involve larceny, except that the people guilty of doing them are guilty of abridging some law somewhere (they are not all four the same thing).

If someone punches you in the nose, they did not *steal* you--that's called assault.

If they said something mean about you that hurt your ability to do business, they didn't *steal your reputation*--that's libel, slander, or somewhere in between (even though you may be deprived of your previous reputation, *they don't have it*--not stealing. Something different.)

If they went around breaking streetlights by throwing rocks at them, they are not *light stealers*, except possibly in your unique world. Again, the world may be deprived of the light, but the vandal didn't carry the light off with him somehow. We use that word vandal because that crime isn't called stealing either, it's called vandalism.

If someone drinks a large amount of intoxicating beverages, decides to drive, slides into a school bus, and injures 20 children, they did not *steal a bus*. Like the other things above, this is also its own thing, with its own name, in this case variously DUI, DWI, DFU, Drunk Driving, Drink Driving, etc.

If a factory (probably in China) decides on their own to make fake "Rolex" watches and sell them online, they didn't (the pattern should start becoming clear) STEAL THE ROLEX COMPANY, didn't STEAL WATCHES, and didn't even STEAL THE DESIGN*, instead copying it from what's known about it. They counterfeited some watches, again up there with patents and trademarks. It is a thing, with a name, and that name is not "stealing."

Words *mean* things.

There are many things someone can do that are wrong, unethical, mean, bad, etc. Not everything wrong is called "stealing." This is seriously not that difficult, and you have *no* shortage of people pointing this out to you, in this thread alone.

---------------------------------------------* Ok, it's possible that they broke into the Rolex headquarters at 2 in the morning and STOLE THE PLANS, but I highly doubt it. If they did that, we would say THEY STOLE THE PLANS. If they did not do that, and instead did something different, we don't say they did that; we say they did something different.

Sshhh! There are people here who I would swear would stealvandalize that article just to say that the people are now to be known as the STEALERS instead of the VANDALS.

The following sentence is in special danger...

This led to the use of the term "vandalism" to describe any senseless destruction, particularly the "barbarian" defacing of artwork.

With "vandalism" being replaced by "stealing", "senseless destruction" being replaced by "anything at all, nothing in particular", and "defacing of artwork" being changed to "looking at something, or perhaps making an additional copy of it without asking first."

Let's see if we can work through how this works in your universe where borrowing somebody's car does not deprive them of the use of the car. Note: If you do not understand the implications if this first sentence, then Riker will tell you that you can't. Don't even try.

My car is licensed under the GNU Bad Car Analogy License v2. Under the terms of the licensing agreement, you are entitled to use my car and also get a copy of the Haynes manual. I may charge you a reasonable distribution fee for this, but in practice nobody does. My car may not be distributed without the Haynes manual.

So when you borrow my car, you obtain an exact copy of my car, but you're also bound by my licensing agreement. You agree that you will not let anybody borrow your copy of my car unless you also provide them with a copy of the Haynes manual. I might think about charging a distribution fee if you, your friends, and then everybody on this side of the state clogs up my driveway borrowing their own copy of my GNU Bad Analogy Car, but that's probably not going to happen, because for some insane reason everybody wants iCars.

So, let's say you borrow a copy of my car. Then you lend a copy of that car to somebody else, but you refuse to give them the Haynes manual and insist that they must see you for all repair needs. All 3 of us still have cars, but the Bad Car Analogy Frontier Foundation might come after your ass and give you nightmares.

So, let's say your borrow somebody else's iCar. You now have a copy of an iCar, and both you and your friend can use your iCars at the same time. The trouble is that you've broken the iProprietary iLicense. Who's been harmed? You still have your iCar. Your friend also has an iCar now. However, Apple insists that your friend has failed to convert a Potential Sale into a Kinetic Sale before moving through a distance (or something, probably involving work, which obviously is not required in your universe to get a car), and thus his ass is grass. But there are still two cars.

I almost feel as though somebody has made this analogy before, and I am merely telling it from memory....

Proprietary software is wrong. Digital restriction management is wrong. Copying (not stealing) source code so that others can defeat your anti-user restrictions is not wrong. Of course, making use of this requires buying something from Apple, and you should not give your money to a company that violates users' freedoms. The fact that Apple and Microsoft don't just disappear from this world is nothing short of a tragedy.

Yes, he made it himself, but we don't know for sure that he used his own media to do so... Let's for a moment imagine that when the staffer allegedly copied something that apple had some rights to under patent, trademark, and/or coypright law, that that staffer used a usb stick that they found there in the office, and took it--stole it--from the office, as the medium to hold that copied material.

Even if that were the case--and I see no evidence supporting it--here is the reason that we do not focus on the hypothetical stealing of a usb stick, but rather the unauthorized copying of the apple code.

The USB stick probably cost about $50. (it's a $5 usb stick, but this is apple, so $50.) That makes the theft a misdemeanor, and frankly, one likely to fall through the cracks of selective enforcement.

The rights to the apple program code, on the other hand, have a value more than the average person's net worth. It is arguably more wrong to violate those rights to the tune of incalculable value, than to violate the property rights by fifty bucks.

The stealing of the relatively worthless usb stick, even if it happened, is inconsequential in comparison to the unauthorized copying of the valuable program code.

Here is the payoff, for the "It's totally stealing" people: Now, the reason you were able to follow the previous sentence is that "stealing" means one thing and "unauthorized copying" means something else, and you know it, and were able to keep up with which is which. If they were synonyms (and they still aren't), you would not have been able to parse any sense out of it.

A possible source of your confusion is that many news outlets see charges filed against people in the fields of trademark law, patent law, or copyright law, which are dense, complex fields, and they hear "blah blah blah" because they believe (perhaps rightly) that the intricacies of these laws are over the head of the average reader/listener/viewer--so they "dumb down" the situation by making a comparison to something that the less-intelligent can probably understand (stealing). Until today, I thought that this was pretentious nonsense, but now I understand that it's over the heads of a lot more people--even here on this site--than I would have imagined. I have been giving some of you people more credit than you are due, it seems.

No, proprietary software is not wrong. If I spend time building something it will be proprietary because it is my property. You have no right to demand the benefits of my work, period. If I choose to distribute it, well that is another thing. If you come demanding rights to what I have written - be armed.

This petty fool you support has threatened the security of every owner and user of an Apple device. Perhaps he is some Android nitwit who resents other players having relatively secure operating systems. Nevertheless, he (or she) chose to try and damage a huge company and deprive all its users of what they paid for. As such, maybe he should be deprived of the benefits of such services - ALL such services. No phone, no computer, no electronic banking, no entertainment centre - nix. That might be just. Instead, he will probably be dead in a few years, I mean, who would hire him?

This person knowingly performed an act designed to reduce, minimise or obviate my security. To actively damage me.

Either he nor his supporters understand what 'moral' or 'ethical' mean.

The party that was harmed was Apple. If Apple's users were depending on Apple's iSecurity through obscurity, they were harmed when they decided to buy the iThingie.

Apple's iSecurity through obscurity certainly does not deprive Apple's customers of the product they purchased. They still have their iThingies! From this hysterical line of reasoning, you go into further hysterics saying that the intern should have her or his (you did consider that it might be a her, right?) access to an entire spectrum of technologies, many of which have nothing to do with Apple, revoked.

I think you're the one who struggles with what moral and ethical mean.

No, proprietary software is not wrong. If I spend time building something it will be proprietary because it is my property.

Proprietary software is wrong because it denies users the four freedoms. [gnu.org] Maybe you didn't know that definition, or maybe you are the type of person who would disregard others' freedoms and the implications your actions have on society simply so you can make more money. I cannot fathom why someone would hold the position that it is somehow okay for a society to rely on black boxes and never be able to educate themselves as to what those computing devices actually do and how they do it. If you care about freedom, education, and independence, then that is not a position you should hold.

Perhaps he is some Android nitwit who resents other players having relatively secure operating systems.

Android also includes non-free proprietary user-subjugating software, so it's marginally better at best.

Your speculation about this person is baseless, in any case.

Nevertheless, he (or she) chose to try and damage a huge company and deprive all its users of what they paid for.

They were deprived of nothing.

This petty fool you support has threatened the security of every owner and user of an Apple device.